We West Busch Busch Boule Boulevar ard (SR (SR 580) 580) Corridor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Pr Project Advi Advisor sory Gr Group

• up Meet

Meeting #1 #1

We West Busch Busch Boule Boulevar ard (SR (SR 580) 580) Corridor Corridor Study Study

fr from

• m Nor

North Dale Dale Ma Mabry High Highway to to Nor North Nebr Nebrask aska Avenue enue

Hillsbor Hillsborough

• ugh Coun

County ty, Florid Florida FDO FDOT Financial nancial Pr Project ID ID Num Number: er: 435908 435908‐1‐22 22‐01 01 North North Ta Tampa Br Branch anch Lib Library Augu August 29, 29, 2017 2017 – 10:00 10:00 am am to to 12:00 12:00 pm pm

Ag Agenda enda fo for Pr Project Advisor Advisory Gr Group

• up

Me Meet eting #1 #1

• Introductions
• Existing Roadway and Corridor

Characteristics

• Developing the Corridor Vision
• Next Steps
• Questions
• Adjourn

Pu Purpose of

• f the

the SR SR 580 580 Corrid Corridor Study Study

• Define existing conditions
• Identify transportation‐related needs
• Define acceptable levels of access and

mobility

• Determine transportation system needs to

support surrounding land uses

• Consolidate and control access points
• Identify safety concerns
• Identify operational deficiencies and

promote operational efficiency

Intr troduction

• duction to

to PA PAG #1 #1 Me Meet eting

Intr troductions

• ductions
• State your name
• Who do you represent
• What your interest is in the SR 580

corridor

PA PAG Ro Roles and and Respo sponsibilitie sibilities

• Attend as many meetings as possible
• Clearly and openly articulate your interests
• Listen to varying points of view
• Productively discuss issues with members

who may hold divergent views

• Actively generate and evaluate potential

improvement options

• Serve as a two‐way conduit of information
• Keep others informed of the PAG’s efforts

Goal Goals fo for PA PAG #1 #1

• Understand roadway characteristics
• Compare EO/Agency Kick‐off comments with

potential solutions

• Understand existing Context Classification

and ground‐truth future expectations

• Provide input on User Preference Surveys

Futur Future PA PAG me meet etings gs

• PAG #2

≈ October 2017 ≈ User Preference survey; visioning

• PAG #3

≈ January 2018 ≈ Purpose and need; range of solutions

• PAG #4

≈ June 2018 ≈ Report on final near‐term and long‐term decisions

Exis Existing ting Ro Roadway and and Corridor Corridor Char Charact acteri ristics ics

Pr Project In Inform rmatio ion Loc Location tion Ma Map

Pr Project In Inform rmatio ion ‐ FDO FDOT’s context classific classifications tions

C1‐Natural C2‐Rural C2T‐Rural Town C3R‐Suburban Residential C3C‐Suburban Commercial C4‐Urban General C5‐Urban Center C6‐Urban Core

FDOT Complete Streets Manual

Development Form and Intensity

• Building Placement
• Presence of Fronting Uses
• Location of Off‐Street

Parking

• Land Uses
• Building Height

Street Connectivity

• Block Length
• Block Perimeter
• Intersection Density

Exis Existing ting co conte ntext classific classification tion

Mostly residential uses within large blocks and a disconnected or sparse roadway network.

C3R-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL

Mostly non-residential uses with large building footprints and large parking lots within large blocks and a disconnected or sparse roadway network.

C4-URBAN GENERAL

Mix of uses set within small blocks with a well-connected roadway network. The roadway network usually connects to residential neighborhoods immediately along the corridor or

• n the back side of blocks

fronting the roadway.

C3C-SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL

C3R C3R‐Suburban Suburban Re Residential – D – Dale Ma Mabry Hwy Hwy to to Arm Armenia nia Av Ave.

Mostly residential uses within large blocks and a disconnected or sparse roadway network.

C3R-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL

C4 C4‐Urban Urban Gener General – A – Armenia Av Ave to to Nor North Bl Blvd

C4-URBAN GENERAL

Mix of uses set within small blocks with a well-connected roadway network. The roadway network usually connects to residential neighborhoods immediately along the corridor or

• n the back side of blocks

fronting the roadway.

C3C C3C Suburban uburban Com Commer ercial cial – N – North Bl Blvd to to N Nebr Nebras aska Av Ave.

Mostly non-residential uses with large building footprints and large parking lots within large blocks and a disconnected or sparse roadway network.

C3C-SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL

Section 1: North Blvd to Florida

C3C C3C Suburban uburban Com Commer ercial cial – N – North Bl Blvd to to N Nebr Nebras aska Av Ave.

Mostly non-residential uses with large building footprints and large parking lots within large blocks and a disconnected or sparse roadway network.

C3C-SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL

Section 2: Florida to Nebraska

Wh Why does does co conte ntext classific classification tion mat matter er?

• Projects will be evaluated using

future context

• Future context should be clearly and

consistently documented in local policies

• Local form‐based codes and zoning

can be used to inform FDOT’s context classification determination

• On‐street parking is a key element in

C4, C5 and C6 & where it is not present could be added per local plan, for speed management, or to increase available parking

Ta Take Awa Away fr from

• m Exis

Existing ting Con Context Classific Classification tion in inform rmatio ion

• No bike lanes throughout corridor
• Sidewalk gaps on South side of SR 580
• There is latitude in Context Classifications
• Projects are evaluated on FUTURE context

Pedes destrian/Bicy rian/Bicycle le Coun Counts ts

This This slid slide illu illustrates the the loc locations wi with the the hea heavies iest bik bike/p /ped tr traffic fic (base (based on

• n peak

peak 2‐hour hour co counts [1 [1 da day only]

• nly] – f

– from VHB VHB AAD AADT mem emo)

• )

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SB Ramps NB Ramps SB Ramps NB Ramps Dale Mabry Hway Himes Avenue Twin Lakes Boulevard Orange Grove Rd Armenia Avenue North Boulevard Florida Avenue I‐275 Nebraska Avenue NB/SB ‐ Bike (171) 1 10 12 15 12 30 3 40 11 37 NB/SB ‐ Ped (147) 1 8 3 3 1 8 5 49 12 17 7 2 11 20 EB/WB ‐ Bike (53) 1 8 2 6 2 1 2 8 7 6 2 5 3 EB/WB ‐ Ped (69) 1 4 1 2 4 4 3 2 9 6 5 6 11 4 1 3 3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pedestrian and Bicycle Intersection Movements

EB SIDEW A LK W B SIDEW A LK

Exis Existing ting Tr Traffic Coun Counts ts

Tr Traffic Vo Volume Conside Consideratio ions ns

Source: FDOT PPM, Glossary of Terms

SR 580 Existing AADT Minimum = 42,000 Maximum = 52,000

Adjacen Adjacent Ea East‐We West Corridor Corridor Consider Considerations tions

Corridor Lanes AADT Notes Bearss Avenue 4‐lane 54,000 3.8 miles north Fletcher Avenue 4‐lane 23,500 Limited western connectivity SR 580 4‐lane 50,000 Waters Avenue 4‐lane 27,000 Limited eastern connectivity Hillsborough Avenue 6‐lane 51,500 2.6 miles south

SR 580 Existing AADT Minimum = 42,000 Maximum = 52,000

SR 500 FLETCHER AVE BEARSS AVE WATERS AVE HILLSBOROUGH AVE

Roundabout undabout Conside Consideratio ion

• Maximum design year total traffic

volume entering an intersection is:

≈ 25,000 AADT for single‐lane roundabout ≈ 45,000 AADT for two lane roundabout

Intersection Entering AADT (Existing) Dale Mabry/SB Ramps 49,100 Dale Mabry/NB Ramps 58,000 Himes 57,500 Twin Lakes 54,900 Orange Grove 50,950 Armenia 58,500 North 51,000 Florida 75,000 I‐275/SB Ramps 60,150 I‐275/NB Ramps 58,150 Nebraska 60,900

SR 580 Existing AADT Minimum = 42,000 Maximum = 52,000

Ta Take Awa Away fr from

• m ex

existing Coun Counts ts

• Bike/Ped movement N‐S exceeds E‐W

movement.

• Lane reduction not viable:

≈ The existing traffic is either within or just above the range for 4‐lane facility Traffic Volumes. ≈ Adjacent corridors are already at or above capacity and too far away.

• Round‐About configuration not viable: within

SR 580 corridor exceeds the maximum traffic volume requirements for a round‐about and impacts the RR on the south.

La Latest Cr Crash ash Hi Histor

• ry by

by Ye Year

Cr Crash ash‐pr prone

• ne ar

areas eas ‐ hea heat ma map

Incapacit pacitating ting and and Fa Fatal Cr Crashes ashes

Fatalities Incapacitating Total Crashes 6 42 665

Incapacit pacitating ting and and Fa Fatal Cr Crashes ashes

Ta Take Awa Away fr from

• m Cr

Crash ash Hi Histor

• ry Da

Data

• Crashes have increased.
• Highest “heat” intensity is at Himes and

between North Blvd and Nebraska.

• The 5‐lane section has a lower frequency and

severity of crashes compared to the 4‐lane section.

• Five of the six fatalities occurred between

North Blvd and Nebraska

De Developi loping ng the the Corridor Corridor Vi Visi sion

• n

Kick Kick‐Of Off me meet eting response sponse to to: How How wo would yo you describe describe the the We West Busch Busch Boule Boulevar ard corridor? rridor?

Kick Kick‐of

• ff me

meet eting response sponse to to: Challeng Challenges es & ide ideas fo for the the corridor? rridor?

Activity Activity ‐ Goal Goals & obj

• bjectiv

ctives es to to acc accomplish lish the the vision vision

Activity Activity – B – Begin pr process

• cess to

to ide identify tify the the Vi Visi sion

• n fo

for We West Busch Busch Bl

• Blvd. Corridor

Corridor

A safe and vibrant corridor that meets the mobility and connectivity needs of all users, regardless of their transportation mode of choice. The corridor’s distinctive character is a source of pride for local residents and businesses, in addition to serving as an inviting gateway to Busch Gardens for visitors from near and far.

How How do do we we get get ther ere? e?

FDOT

invests in improvements within the right‐of‐way

Local Government

influences context classification

Current & Future Corridor Users

define mobility needs

Developm Development ent Ince Incentiv ives Fut Future re Land Land Us Use Form Form‐based based Codes Codes Ur Urban Design Design Special Special Dist District ricts Project Project Cham Champion

• n

Zoning Zoning Transit Transit Lane Lane wi widt dth Num Number er of

• f

Lanes Lanes Speed Speed Bi Bicycle cle and and Pedest Pedestrian rian Infrastruct astructure Crossw Crosswalks alks & mi mid‐ blo block cro crossings Intersections tersections Me Median an treatm eatment ents St Students udents El Elde derly rly Transit Transit‐ dependent ndent Local Local Resident Residents Touris Tourists Truck Truck driv drivers CSX CSX Bus Businesses nesses

Vi Visi sion

• n fo

for the the futur future condition? ndition?

Busch Blvd. South Orange Ave., Orlando

• Consensus that

context classification will remain the same?

≈ Urban form, set‐ backs and other land development policies can encourage pedestrian‐scale environment

Note: City of Tampa Code of Ordinances Sec. 27‐156 Table 4‐2 requires 10 ft. front yard (setback) for properties zoned Commercial General,

Coor Coordina dinated lan land dev developm lopmen ent & redev developm lopmen ent policie policies ca can co comp mpleme ment nt ro roadway way in investments

• Any documented County &/or City form‐based

codes, overlay districts, right‐of‐way preservation plans, etc. for the study area to reinforce pedestrian‐oriented urban form?

• Are any additional stakeholders needed to help

understand this collective future?

Kennedy Blvd. Overlay District Streetscape Guidelines

Activity Activity ‐ Dev Developi ping ng the the We West Busch Busch Bl Blvd User User Pref Preference Sur Survey

Include?:

• Bike Lanes
• More/Wider Sidewalks
• On‐street Parking
• Mid‐block RRFB Crosswalk
• Street Trees
• Lower Speed Limit
• School Zone
• Pedestrian Scale Lighting
• Streetscape/Beautification
• Landscaped Median
• What else?

Don’t Include:

• Reduced Lanes (Road Diet)
• Roundabouts
• Shared use path

Ne Next St Step eps

Adjacen Adjacent Pr Project gr graphic aphic and and lis list

FPID: 437530-1-32-01 FDOT RRR Design

Ne Next St Step eps fo for the the Pr Project Te Team

• Finalize Draft User Preference Survey
• Evaluation and documentation of

improvement options

• Further development of the Visioning

statement

• Stakeholder meetings and documentation

Ne Next St Step eps fo for the the PA PAG

• Discuss the project in your sphere of

influence

• Direct interested parties to the website to

provide comments

• Direct interested parties to the website to

“pin” issues in the corridor using the WikiMapping interactive tool.

• Provide feedback to the project team

regarding your conversations with interested parties.

Ne Next St Step eps ‐ Schedule Schedule

Ques Questions

• ns????

???